Heynike v 00222648 Ltd (Formerly Birlec Limited) & Ors (Fatal Mesothelioma) [2018] EWHC 303 (QB) (22 February 2018)
It was not necessary to imply a contract of employment between the deceased and Birlec, as the evidence showed clear agency arrangements with Lou Brawn Ltd, and neither the deceased nor Birlec intended an employment relationship. The deceased was not an employee of Birlec for statutory purposes. However, the defendants owed statutory and common law duties to ensure the safety of the deceased, and breaches of those duties were established based on the hazardous conditions and lack of adequate precautions against asbestos exposure.
- Citation
- [2018] EWHC 303
- Parties
- Claimant: Francois Maartens Heynike (executor of the Estate of David Hill, deceased); First Defendant: 00222648 Limited (formerly Birlec Limited); Second Defendant: Ministry of Defence; Third Defendant: Special Metals Wiggin Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 22 February 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil (tort – Fatal Mesothelioma/asbestos Exposure) / High Court Trial – Judgment on Liability
- Outcome
- Liability established against the defendants for breach of statutory and common law duties; quantum of damages agreed at £135,000, subject to resolution of liability.
- Legal Topics
- Employer's Liability, Agency Workers, Asbestos Exposure, Factories Act 1961, Asbestos Regulations 1969, Common Law Duty of Care
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Francois Maartens Heynike (executor of the Estate of David Hill, deceased)
Claimant
00222648 Limited (formerly Birlec Limited)
First Defendant
Ministry of Defence
Second Defendant
Special Metals Wiggin Limited
Third Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil (tort – Fatal Mesothelioma/asbestos Exposure) / High Court Trial – Judgment on Liability
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the deceased was an employee of Birlec or an agency worker supplied by Lou Brawn Ltd
- 2 Whether statutory duties under the Factories Act 1961 and Asbestos Regulations 1969 applied to the defendants
- 3 Whether the place of work was unsafe under section 29(1) of the Factories Act 1961
Ratio Decidendi
It was not necessary to imply a contract of employment between the deceased and Birlec, as the evidence showed clear agency arrangements with Lou Brawn Ltd, and neither the deceased nor Birlec intended an employment relationship. The deceased was not an employee of Birlec for statutory purposes. However, the defendants owed statutory and common law duties to ensure the safety of the deceased, and breaches of those duties were established based on the hazardous conditions and lack of adequate precautions against asbestos exposure.
Court Disposition
Liability established against the defendants for breach of statutory and common law duties; quantum of damages agreed at £135,000, subject to resolution of liability.
Orders
- Defendants held liable for breach of statutory and common law duties resulting in the deceased's fatal mesothelioma.
- Damages in the sum of £135,000 to be paid to the claimant, subject to any further orders regarding apportionment or contribution.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment